3 ms·

When you say > If you want to consider dark energy perpetual motion, sure, but then it's excluded from the "we know that perpetual motion is not possible" rule

When you say > If you want to consider dark energy perpetual motion, sure, but then it's excluded from the "we know that perpetual motion is not possible" rule. That's the incongruity here. You can hedge it around in various ways, but it is still an incongruity, which was my point. I personally do not believe in any perpetual motion mechanism and I find the "dark energy" concept to be in that same set of mechanisms. I somehow think that we will see soon enough a new set of theories and models that have a better explanatory power that what we see being expressed today in cosmology. How long? Don't know. But I suspect it won't be too far away. I think the same thing will happen in regards to the Standard Model. What the fun will be is seeing what comes up. Hopefully people will be able to laugh at themselves when it arrives - though I don't think that this will happen. Too many people take themselves too seriously over these kinds of matters instead of dealing with the matters that really matter.

dist-epoch 3y ago
There are other forms of "perpetual motion" energy in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
- oldandtired 3y ago
  You reference the Zero-point energy article on wikipedia. What is interesting is the following quote from the very first paragraph of that article > if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity Here we see that the article references Special Relativity which is actually at odds with General Relativity. We can then say one of the following things: 1) Special Relativity and General Relativity are only approximations to reality and you have to be very careful when and where you apply each theory. 2) Special Relativity and General Relativity are both wrong 3) Special Relativity is correct and General Relativity is wrong 4) General Relativity is correct and Special Relativity is wrong What you cannot do is say that both are correct theories as the fundamental basis of each in regards to space/time are quite different. This leads to an incongruity if you think both are correct. Now back to Zero-point energy. The problem here is that you have to be able to measure this effect and not just have it arise from theory in a manner that cannot be measured. This comes back to the place of determining whether or not "dark energy" is or can be the basis of "perpetual motion machines". Since I don't believe that such an entity actually exists, I also don't think that we have any possibility of any sort of perpetual motion per se. There are many incongruities in our modern suite of theories. It is just that many people (especially professional scientists) turn a blind eye to those incongruities. These incongruities are a sign that our theories are very much incomplete and possibly very wrong. From the perspective of looking at the history of scientific investigation, I think we are back to a time similar to when the epicycle models were used to describe what was being seen (an example of Fourier series) and we are now ready for a new Copernican revolution. The dogma in science education is reminiscent of those times.

dist-epoch 3y ago

There are other forms of "perpetual motion" energy in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

oldandtired 3y ago
You reference the Zero-point energy article on wikipedia. What is interesting is the following quote from the very first paragraph of that article > if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity Here we see that the article references Special Relativity which is actually at odds with General Relativity. We can then say one of the following things: 1) Special Relativity and General Relativity are only approximations to reality and you have to be very careful when and where you apply each theory. 2) Special Relativity and General Relativity are both wrong 3) Special Relativity is correct and General Relativity is wrong 4) General Relativity is correct and Special Relativity is wrong What you cannot do is say that both are correct theories as the fundamental basis of each in regards to space/time are quite different. This leads to an incongruity if you think both are correct. Now back to Zero-point energy. The problem here is that you have to be able to measure this effect and not just have it arise from theory in a manner that cannot be measured. This comes back to the place of determining whether or not "dark energy" is or can be the basis of "perpetual motion machines". Since I don't believe that such an entity actually exists, I also don't think that we have any possibility of any sort of perpetual motion per se. There are many incongruities in our modern suite of theories. It is just that many people (especially professional scientists) turn a blind eye to those incongruities. These incongruities are a sign that our theories are very much incomplete and possibly very wrong. From the perspective of looking at the history of scientific investigation, I think we are back to a time similar to when the epicycle models were used to describe what was being seen (an example of Fourier series) and we are now ready for a new Copernican revolution. The dogma in science education is reminiscent of those times.